Another VMC example...
- Thread starter NickH
- Start date
bucksmith
Did you lock the doors?
Gust of wind??
Arrogant to call it anything but luck??
Jeez, I truly hope he takes an honest look at that after the cameras are off.
bucksmith
Did you lock the doors?
Ok, guess he's attributing the need for a go around to the gust of wind.
But the nose goes up, the bird turns left. The nose goes up again, the bird turns further left.
Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground (or a moth balled fedex aircraft) come up and smite thee.
Great post, text book vmc.
But the nose goes up, the bird turns left. The nose goes up again, the bird turns further left.
Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground (or a moth balled fedex aircraft) come up and smite thee.
Great post, text book vmc.
NickH
Uber Driver
Exactly..
Had he lowered the nose, in the worst case, he'd have been able to control a landing in the weeds, likely damaging the canard (It's the Quickie way), but minimizing the chances of an extremely negative outcome.
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
Eff-me running!!
A
Adler
Guest
To be fair, those dudes have done some other impressive things with solid results, like this https://www.wired.com/2013/09/reno-air-race-2013/
gotWXdagain
Polished Member
Plus side, they don't have to move the wreckage any when its time to bring it to the scrap heap.
alaskadrifter
Landing gear operator
Did the engine go out after the go around?
Flyinthrew
Well-Known Member
I have a feeling he/they knew that they didn't have enough vert stab to mount those things other than where they are. That's why they're mounted so close to centerline, which just so happens to be a place where the downwind engine won't get enough air and flame out in a full power, heavy crosswind wave off scenario. Just so happens it's still not enough tail.
Vmc demo with throttles closed and land straight ahead was the right answer. Not max blast into pretty much the worst place to crash in a 5 mile radius.
Bear
Well-Known Member
http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:17:0::NO::AP_BRIEF_RPT_VAR:WPR16LA110
' The original design for a nose-mounted piston engine was modified by the builders; they fabricated and installed a faired nose cone, and installed the two turbine engines just aft of the cockpit, one on either side of the fuselage, near where the side surfaces transitioned to the bottom surface. One engine was attached to either end of a through-strut, so that each engine/thrust centerline was located about 2 feet outboard of the fuselage centerline. Engine Information The engine was designed and marketed for use on model aircraft. According to the engine manufacturer's Operation and Maintenance Manual (OMM), the TJ40-G1 was a single-shaft turbojet engine with a single-stage radial compressor, annular combustion chamber, single-stage axial turbine, and an exhaust nozzle. A starter-generator was housed in the compressor impeller assembly. A ceramic spark plug was integrated in the combustion chamber, and "evaporating pipes" were used for "generation of the mixture of fuel and air." The engine produced about 88 pounds of thrust. Idle fuel consumption was cited as 20 ml/min (0.32 gallons per hour- gph), and maximum fuel consumption rate was 19.2 gph. The OMM contained the following caution: "The TJ40-G1 turbojet engine is designed exclusively for model aircraft and is not suitable for any other purpose. Never use it for people, objects or vehicle; it can only be used for properly designed model aircraft. Any other use can result in injury or death." '
' The original design for a nose-mounted piston engine was modified by the builders; they fabricated and installed a faired nose cone, and installed the two turbine engines just aft of the cockpit, one on either side of the fuselage, near where the side surfaces transitioned to the bottom surface. One engine was attached to either end of a through-strut, so that each engine/thrust centerline was located about 2 feet outboard of the fuselage centerline. Engine Information The engine was designed and marketed for use on model aircraft. According to the engine manufacturer's Operation and Maintenance Manual (OMM), the TJ40-G1 was a single-shaft turbojet engine with a single-stage radial compressor, annular combustion chamber, single-stage axial turbine, and an exhaust nozzle. A starter-generator was housed in the compressor impeller assembly. A ceramic spark plug was integrated in the combustion chamber, and "evaporating pipes" were used for "generation of the mixture of fuel and air." The engine produced about 88 pounds of thrust. Idle fuel consumption was cited as 20 ml/min (0.32 gallons per hour- gph), and maximum fuel consumption rate was 19.2 gph. The OMM contained the following caution: "The TJ40-G1 turbojet engine is designed exclusively for model aircraft and is not suitable for any other purpose. Never use it for people, objects or vehicle; it can only be used for properly designed model aircraft. Any other use can result in injury or death." '
knot4u
Repeat Offender
You are brilliant, please continue posting articles related to the subject of the thread that at the same time add nothing to the conversation. Having an opinion about something and trying to express what you think about it isn't easy, I understand your frustration and appreciate your struggle. You must be hoot at a dinner party.
z987k
Well-Known Member
Just throw him on the ignore list. It's like he left.
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
This guy is literally a professional test pilot and engineer. We would all be lucky to have 10% the brain he has. Lets all talk about what we would have done differently, but when a guy of this caliber balls one up maybe...just MAYBE you should listen.
Bear
Well-Known Member
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
88lbs of thrust from those little tiny engines. That's fairly neat.
Amazing that he walked away from that mess.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Amazing that he walked away from that mess.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Itchy
Well-Known Member
I feel like I'm jumping in a bar fight, but how is the article not related to the OP? I thought it was the accident synopsis.
NickH
Uber Driver
Yes, it is, and it is relevant. Bear is the equivalent of a poorly written Reddit Bot, that links to what it sees as a relevant article for those too lazy to google further information for themselves. Sometimes it's useful, sometimes it's poor coding completely misses the point. It's inoffensive, and can be skipped over if there's no value to it.
Several members really don't like it, and get very upset, which I simply don't understand.
Bear
Well-Known Member
You're not
NickH, If I've 'missed the point' please ignore or reply accordingly, I have no trouble dealing with it, and will respond with civility, not the laced tirades directed at me by a few for reasons I don't understand. For those who've directed their anger at me without cause, show me how your own posts are so different, are so relevant. Lastly, I'm a career GI/Vet long since retired, spent my early years as a aviation supply officer, also holding a PPL for years. I enjoy this forum for the varied topics, so if you want to ignore my comments so be it, just please cut the unwarranted attacks.
for which I've initiated NO punches.
NickH, If I've 'missed the point' please ignore or reply accordingly, I have no trouble dealing with it, and will respond with civility, not the laced tirades directed at me by a few for reasons I don't understand. For those who've directed their anger at me without cause, show me how your own posts are so different, are so relevant. Lastly, I'm a career GI/Vet long since retired, spent my early years as a aviation supply officer, also holding a PPL for years. I enjoy this forum for the varied topics, so if you want to ignore my comments so be it, just please cut the unwarranted attacks.
Last edited: